Minister of Veterans Affairs Erin O'Toole speaks during a news conference at the Department of National Defence headquarters in Ottawa, Monday March 30, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian WyldAdrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Even in arguments over money, words matter. Thus, Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole's recent arrival has allowed for a more civilized discussion of the concerns expressed by this country's injured, disabled and retired military personnel than was possible under the office's former occupant, Julian Fantino.
But talk also has to be accompanied by action. And the new minister's attempt at a "restart" on the file has yet to fully undo the missteps of his predecessors. This week, Mr. O'Toole introduced a new $70,000 benefit that adds to the lump-sum payment given to military personnel who are severely injured or disabled in one-time work-related events. But the change will only cover a small handful of people each year – and stands to help less than one per cent of severely injured veterans, according to one advocacy group. It's of a piece with the way the Conservatives have handled the veterans file: incomplete measures, usually long in coming.
A Globe analysis earlier this year compared Canada's treatment of maimed and injured veterans unfavourably with those of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Despite the welcome, softer approach, the government has not fully addressed the gap.
The New Veterans' Charter introduced in 2006 has yet to fully deliver on its early promise. Indeed, there's a persuasive argument to be made that it has created widespread inequality and at least two classes of veterans: those who receive monthly stipends and those who make do with lump-sum or annual payments (which they reasonably contend are a worse deal over time than what they would have received pre-2006).
There are steps the Harper government could take that would meaningfully help injured vets, without breaking the federal piggy bank.
A main ask from veterans' groups is that Ottawa bridge the difference between the maximum lump-sum payment provided to veterans ($306,698) and the kinds of awards given in civil court cases involving similarly serious workplace and traffic injuries (the benchmark is roughly $360,000).
The good news is Mr. O'Toole has shown he is willing to listen, and to consider the recommendations of an all-party Commons committee report on improving the lot of veterans. Earlier this month he bolstered compensation for part-time reservists who suffer injuries in the course of their duties. It was the right thing to do. He should do it more often.